SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

I think the topic is at an impasse. It serves well to have people come out and say they faked it. I can say before God I never did. Of all the known languages, and all the people that came and went, it's an unproveable situation. To cast others in light of your own experiences isn't really cool either. Unless you can say for sure everyone faked it as well. But then that would take proof. So it is with so many things of God. Proof can be difficult to produce while faith is required.

I guess that defines my position. I trust God, I have faith. Even though I may be somewhat of a train wreck when it comes to Christianity.

I respect your position, but I'll remind you that the admonition of "that would take proof" is what got this thread heated in the first place.

Chockfull and I have expressed this disagreement in terms of burden of proof and the greater claim.

I believe the person who claims to be speaking in tongues is making the greater claim and has the burden to prove its legitimacy.

Chockfull believes the doubter is making the greater claim and has the burden to prove its illegitimacy.

And I will agree: we are at an impasse.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

I respect your position, but I'll remind you that the admonition of "that would take proof" is what got this thread heated in the first place.

Then proof should be easy to come by disproving SIT in modern times is real.

I believe the person who claims to be speaking in tongues has the burden to prove its legitimacy.

Chockfull believes the doubter has the burden to prove its illegitimacy.

And I will agree: we are at an impasse.

I have followed along. Put me in the chockfull camp.

[Raf]

Then proof should be easy to come by disproving SIT in modern times is real.

You got that backwards. I can't disprove SIT in modern times is real because not everyone who practices it will agree to subject their practice to independent, unbiased observation and investigation.

YOU can prove SIT is real by producing a language. But so far everyone who's tried that in a controlled, observable setting has failed. The existing evidence is on my side, but the limitation is that those who hold to SIT as real will accept nothing less than a 100 percent sample size. And even then, there's an out: God won't necessarily participate in the experiment (I Corinthians 13:1?) So I could theoretically demonstrate that everyone on Earth who practices SIT is faking it and still persuade no one.

Impasse.

By the way, you mentioned that someone unknowingly faking it would produce nothing but gibberish. This has been addressed on this thread and is a false assertion: someone unknowingly faking it would be highly motivated in his heart to produce a real language and will thus subconsciously inject that wish on the sounds he produces. In fact, this is what Samarin believes comprises the entirety of the samples he studied.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

You got that backwards. I can't disprove SIT in modern times is real because not everyone who practices it will agree to subject their practice to independent, unbiased observation and investigation.

What is it, an estimated 6,000,000 claim to SIT? You guys are very convinced in your points of view. But as it is, you have to deal with the other points of view. Thus the impasse. It's simply too broad of a field to prove or disprove. Thousands of known languages. Millions of people. Where does it go at best? A handful of experts who have studied extremely limited samples. Then they understate known languages to a couple thousand, when there are around 6,800 - nearly 7,000 if you use a rounded figure.

[waysider]

What is it, an estimated 6,000,000 claim to SIT? You guys are very convinced in your points of view. But as it is, you have to deal with the other points of view. Thus the impasse. It's simply too broad of a field to prove or disprove. Thousands of known languages. Millions of people. Where does it go at best? A handful of experts who have studied extremely limited samples. Then they understate known languages to a couple thousand, when there are around 6,800 - nearly 7,000 if you use a rounded figure.

You don't have to identify the language or even the message. You simply need to have someone validate that the recorded samples meet the mathematical criteria established for identifying structured language.

Edited October 8, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

My position cannot be proved. It can be disproved. I can't believe we're back at this point of the "argument," considering that it has been effectively addressed numerous times.

[Raf]

I respect that people don't agree with me. I do.

http://philosophy-religion.info/handouts/pdfs/Samarin-Pages_48-75.pdf

The link starts on p. 49.

Starting at the bottom of Pg 55 and going into pg 56, this addresses the number of known languages and the ability of linguists to discern them.

Pg. 65 specifically addresses how someone "unknowingly faking it" (your words, I think: religious free vocalization is what Poythress would call it: chockfull, please check me on that) would be able to produce something with linguistic characteristics that distinguish the sounds produced from mere gibberish (by Samarin's definition).

I don't mind disagreeing. But if we're going to look into arguments for why I'm wrong, I'm going to reserve the right to respond.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Pg. 65 specifically addresses how someone "unknowingly faking it" (your words, I think: religious free vocalization is what Poythress would call it: chockfull, please check me on that) would be able to produce something with linguistic characteristics that distinguish the sounds produced from mere gibberish (by Samarin's definition).

Polythress had a pet term for it - called it "t-speech", from theologically based free vocalization or something like that. Religious free vocalization seems to be a pretty close approximation of his term and one that the average reader probably could get the meaning of without reading his full study.

[Raf]

Polythress had a pet term for it - called it "t-speech", from theologically based free vocalization or something like that. Religious free vocalization seems to be a pretty close approximation of his term and one that the average reader probably could get the meaning of without reading his full study.

Correct. If I'm not mistaken, T-speech and religious free vocalization would be synonymous to Poythress.

[OldSkool]

I don't mind disagreeing. But if we're going to look into arguments for why I'm wrong, I'm going to reserve the right to respond.

Absolutely, as you should. I am not sure I think you are wrong. There are theological positions, such as tongues going to the grave with the apostles (my wording), that could be true as well. And of course if it were, your point would stand doctrinally. In the short time I have left the way it's been a tough pill to swallow coming to grips that I don't know that I know that I know. In fact, there is more error in my beliefs that I care to admit. And those beliefs were inculcated in my by TWI.

So at this point I really am at a loss either way, but my leanings are towards a position of faith. I don't think you can go wrong by having faith in God. With that said, I have a long ways to go with what I believe, the theology behind it all. I have been away from TWI for a short four years. Admittedly, much of that time has been spent caring for my son, getting my family in order after TWI's damage, and hanging at the corner pub. So I am not in a position to disprove you or say you are wrong.

I am just at a spot where I know I didn't fake it, but admit that what I did could be glossalia. I am just not overly persuaded by the experts in this case either. And since I am not really trying to figure my beliefs out at the moment, I have hesitated to weigh in. Though what I have shared is my opinion at the moment. Though, my opinion does have elements of reason that are compelling - not that those elements are new to the discussion.

[Raf]

I am just at a spot where I know I didn't fake it, but admit that what I did could be glossalia.

I'm going to nudge you a little bit by suggesting, politely (I hope) that this sentence is self-contradictory.

Terms: glossalalia in Samarin is distinguished from the actual production of a language and appears to fit the description of free vocalization we see in Poythress. (Those two original links have come in quite handy, no?)

If you KNOW you didn't fake it, you can't admit what you did COULD be glossalalia. You would have to not know you didn't fake it.

At this point, I don't want to talk you out of what you did.

My opinion (worth the paper it's printed on, and it's not printed on paper) is that you don't know you didn't fake it. You know your heart was pure and in a Godly place. You know you had no intention to deceive anyone, not yourself, not God, not your fellow believers. You know you love God and want to do His will. But this thread has troubled you and you don't know what to conclude. You don't like being called a liar (who would?), but your sense of certainty in the legitimacy of what you have been doing is shaken, if only a little. Ultimately, you view this as trusting man (in the form of the arguments I have presented) vs. trusting God. And you choose to trust God.

Presumptuous of me to speak for you, but that's the only way I can make sense of your comment. Am I off the mark?

Edited October 8, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

Terms: glossalalia in Samarin is distinguished from the actual production of a language and appears to fit the description of non-religious free vocalization we see in Poythress. (Those two original links have come in quite handy, no?)

I think the contradiction comes more into play with my views of glossalalia, and perhaps to a lesser degree, my lack of understanding of it's definition. However, I have always considered glossalalia BS. Perhaps, that was my safety mechanism to protect my TWI theology that never allowed dissent. Now I am considering (that perhaps) the human mind could subconsciously make up something along these lines as a possibility. And yes it's disconcerting.

I have faith in man. Man is not always wrong. I think in this case the experts in question have done the best they could with what they have had to work with. Though, I don't find them very convincing considering the scope of what they are studying. And it does clash with my theology concerning the subject. So when given a choice between faith in man vs. faith in God I tend towards faith in God in my best efforts to trust him.

I admit that I am a walking conundrum at times when it comes to the remains of my tattered beliefs. But I am working through at my pace and recovering from extremely difficult circumstances in my personal life. So, as I have said, it's been good to get into this subject. GSC has forced me to call into question many beliefs I have held as infallible. Some have stood, many have fallen.

[Raf]

I thought a vocabulary issue might be the stumbling block here.

My fault for casting this whole discussion in terms of "lying" and "faking." Those words undermine a person's integrity, and the defensive response is both natural and predictable. In a conversation like this, it's also unavoidable (well, not entirely unavoidable: I could have just not posted anything). If referring to free vocalization and the subconscious injecting itself into a process energized by genuine love and integrity helps people to consider that this MIGHT be what they did, then I would naturally prefer the less objectionable terms. But make no mistake about my position: in terms of what we did and the results of what we produced, I am NOT drawing a distinction. I just think one way of expressing it is more palatable and less insulting than the other.

Good of you to stick with the dialogue, Old Skool. Till we meet next...

[OldSkool]

My fault for casting this whole discussion in terms of "lying" and "faking."

Well, to be perfectly candid, it wouldn't be the first lie I told as truth on behalf of TWI. I taught their lie filled doctrine for many years as truth.

- law of believing

- tithe

- blind obedience to leadership

- true household

- Wierwille/Martindale as MOG

And the list could continue.

[geisha779]

So, either you can produce someone who is adept in these languages and study a sampling of those who speak in tongues world wide or leave me to my opinion. I have read nothing that is convincing either way in this entire thread, beyond some faked it and readily admit it.

Hey, I am baking apple bread today. If I can fit it in I will try. It might have to get in line behind laundry though and I am with Raf on the burden of proof. If we wanted to get nit picky.... it really is those who make claims that have the burden to prove them, but I am truly not that invested. I have a little peace about this issue and I am glad. I don't want to be that too nit picky person and really... I applaud your willingness to consider things outside your comfort zone. Lord knows I don't like to. . . . and I respect those who do it with integrity. That means I respect your attitude and contribution to this thread and I admire your considered and cautious approach.

[OldSkool]

That means I respect your attitude and contribution to this thread and I admire your considered and cautious approach.

Thanks!

[geisha779]

I understand what you are saying. It's a natural line of logic from the admission of faking it. Next, you question whether you are unique - is it REALLY available to Christians or not. Next, you tie in the false teacher input wondering whether because VP was an evil guy that whether he introduced devil spirits into our lives by his false teachings.

Yeah, that is not actually what I was thinking. I don't often think in terms of devil spirits. "Another"....meaning something other than the Holy Spirit. false, fake, not real. There isn't actually another Jesus or another gospel. There is the real and the counterfeit. Genuine vs counterfeit was more my thought.

I really do believe the biblical accounts of SIT. I do believe that Christians did SIT. I question whether we still need to and if modern tongues is the same thing. As you may have gathered, I don't think so. No devil spirits....I promise. Seeing that written I was taken aback.

So one of the underlying questions is "how much can God protect someone in a false ministry?" I'm sure everyone on this forum has had positive Christian experiences while in TWI. (Yes, I know many may question whether the experiences were genuinely Christian or not). "Can God have protected our hearts while experiencing the BS of TWI so that we could heal?" Quite obviously there is a lot of emotional damage from how TWI operates. So in that respect yes the false teachings have taken their toll. But without admitting the positive experiences as being from God's influence, how to reconcile them? Some of it goes right down to what you believe about God? Is He good always? Is He powerful enough to protect us even under false teachers influence?

I didn't. Well, let me rephrase that. I did meet Christians in TWI, I am sure of that, but, they were every bit as confused as I was and promoting the same thing. There were very few exceptions. A genuine Christian experience to me would be a full sharing of a like faith in the biblical Jesus. I never saw that.

God is always good, but my heart in TWI was not a new heart. I was unregenerate. So, in that regard, like anyone else who eventually comes to Christ.....God was with me. I had to be delivered from the carnival that was TWI. I am genuinely confused by what you mean by protecting me. I am not being obtuse, but I was in full on committed to TWI, PFAL, and VP. I really believed that theology. God didn't shield me, He has delivered me.

Agree VP was a false teacher, and TWI was/is a cult. PFAL and "word of faith" theology? I don't even know what that is. I mean Norman Vincent Peale wrote "The Power of Positive Thinking", and wrote for many mainstream Christian magazines in addition to his books. Is he based in the occult?

Do you remember VP mentioning E.W. Kenyon? He is considered the father of the Word of Faith movement. Word of Faith is similar to name and claim it....believing equals receiving....and the prosperity gospel..... along with a whole host of other things incorporated into PFAL. You should check out the Word of Faith movement. You will recognize much of it. If you follow Kenyon back you will see where it comes from. Interesting stuff.

I certainly always thought VP's "bodybuilder" analogies with SIT were a little far-fetched. I didn't buy that. I also didn't buy that it's your only "proof" of eternal life. If that's all you need then what about faith? I did appreciate that at least PFAL listed all the verses related to SIT in any conceivable fashion. That was so much more than any denominational minister ever did for me, and I asked them. However, the next step of leaping to logical conclusions I felt was interspersed in the teachings. For myself, since SIT was more naturally occurring as part of my prayer life since a teen, it was easy just to keep praying and kind of hold the BS in abeyance.

If that is what you do and you are at peace with it.....I certainly have no issues with your private prayer life. How could I? I may strongly disagree that SIT is for private prayer, but I could be wrong. Either way, I really don't think it is a defining doctrine.

Sudo's "seemed like a good idea at the time" I can relate to. I'm so embarrassed over all those "excellor" sessions I led, having people start with the letter "C" then fabricate the tongue language (mostly). And all the extemporaneous BS I presented similarly in that light - the "bodybuilder" analogy even though I didn't fully agree with it, the "building fluency" lines of BS. Actually it wasn't a good idea at the time - it was BS. I was just blind to it.

I am right there with you....I ran them too. You were probably far nicer about it than me. I am not proud of what or who I became in TWI. Thank goodness God is able to deliver us.

I guess picking up the pieces is never easy. That's why we need to talk to each other.

[Raf]

So, either you can produce someone who is adept in these languages and study a sampling of those who speak in tongues world wide or leave me to my opinion. I have read nothing that is convincing either way in this entire thread, beyond some faked it and readily admit it.

I missed this particular line earlier: the study you suggest is exactly the study Samarin produced. Naturally, his sample size was wayyyyy under 100 percent, and I have no reason to believe he included anyone from TWI in his sample. But it was more than a handful of people from more than just the USA. But for what it's worth, there it is.

I have seen nothing to discredit Samarin's analysis. If anyone finds something, let me know.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Raf

[Human without the bean]

Actually, I speak with gibberish all the time. I sort of have this relationship with my son where I utter out gibberish, poppy-cock, things that just ramble from my mind to make him laugh, He always asks, "what does that mean?", and I say," it's just gibberish, it don't mean a thing".

I'm sure it stems for my former affiliation with twm. (maybe I'm demented or something) I do ask myself does it matter whether we sit or not? Don't know. I would probably sit more if I knew it was real. But I guess that's something that we will learn about when The Lord returns.

[chockfull]

I have seen nothing to discredit Samarin's analysis. If anyone finds something, let me know.

Hey Raf,

I'm not sure I found the link to Samarin's paper. All I ever found was it quoted in a bunch of places. Do you have a link for the original source?

Hey, I am baking apple bread today.

Pics or it didn't happen. :)

[Raf]

I respect that people don't agree with me. I do.

http://philosophy-religion.info/handouts/pdfs/Samarin-Pages_48-75.pdf

The link starts on p. 49.

Starting at the bottom of Pg 55 and going into pg 56, this addresses the number of known languages and the ability of linguists to discern them.

Pg. 65 specifically addresses how someone "unknowingly faking it" (your words, I think: religious free vocalization is what Poythress would call it: chockfull, please check me on that) would be able to produce something with linguistic characteristics that distinguish the sounds produced from mere gibberish (by Samarin's definition).

I don't mind disagreeing. But if we're going to look into arguments for why I'm wrong, I'm going to reserve the right to respond.

That's the Samarin link, chockfull

[geisha779]

. . . . . .

Interesting point: In CES (I refuse to dignify their later irrelevant metamorpheses), they taught that an interpretation should take the form of prayer and praise, not exhortation and comfort, and voila! Just like that, their interpretations changed to conform to their new doctrine. What this tells me? I'm not the only one who made it up, who lied to gain the favor of the group.

Wherever I went in TWI, prophecy and interpretations were always sprinkled with plenty of thee, thou, shalt, and nay's. It was as if God had never heard our modern vernacular, and his "voice" was always with an emphasis on the King's English. Convenient though, as we were restricted to the KJV bible.

Funny how that worked out.

[OldSkool]

Wherever I went in TWI, prophecy and interpretations were always sprinkled with plenty of thee, thou, shalt, and nay's. It was as if God had never heard our modern vernacular, and his "voice" was always with an emphasis on the King's English. Convenient though, as we were restricted to the KJV bible.

Funny how that worked out.

Ya, they justify that with a true load of BS. TWI teaches that God inspires the message but you speak it out using your understanding. Since TWI uses King James version it was said that was what some people's understanding of the Bible was, King James English. Convenient, no?

[waysider]

Ya, they justify that with a true load of BS. TWI teaches that God inspires the message but you speak it out using your understanding. Since TWI uses King James version it was said that was what some people's understanding of the Bible was, King James English. Convenient, no?

Yea, verily, I say unto you, thou shalt dwell upon the convenient and be not swayed to the left or the right.

Edited October 9, 2012 by waysider

[geisha779]

Very convenient, but not really a satisfying explanation. I think you said it best...BS.

What I remember hearing very specifically and very often is the phrase, "I am the lord your God and thus say. . . . " That isn't inspiration it is dictation.

Why is it those who were inspired by God to write scripture had no problem using their own words, style, vernacular, and language? There are 66 books, 40 authors, 3 continents, and 3 languages spanning a period of 1500 years.... but our "inspiration" had us resorting to the English of the KJV because that is how we understood? Sounds like we were inspired by the words of the bible, not directly by God. Certainly fits with "It is the word the word and nothing but the word".

If God were going to inspire a message to edify....we already have scripture. You would think it would be more specific. Tongues were often prayer in the assembly according to scripture...probably specific there for someone who understood what was being said....can you just imagine how that would give a church strength? That actually would be a miracle. A person speaking a language they don't know, someone understanding, and it being a prayer specific to a persons life? If I didn't believe, but heard and understood those words....I would certainly sit up and pay attention.